Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in
contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:
Existential fallacy an argument has a universal premise and a particular
conclusion.[9]
Formal syllogistic fallacies[edit]
Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) a categorical syllogism that has four
terms.[10]
Illicit major a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is
not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]
Illicit minor a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not
distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]
Fallacy of the undistributed middle the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not
distributed.[11]
Informal fallacies[edit]
Main article: Informal fallacy
Informal fallacies arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]
Begging the question (petitio principii) providing what is essentially the conclusion
of the argument as a premise.[22][23][24][25]
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see onus probandi) I need not prove my claim,
you must prove it is false.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) when the reasoner begins with what
he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of
the heap, bald man fallacy) improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[26]
Correlative-based fallacies
Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) a faulty assumption
that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[27]
Equivocation the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by
glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[29]
Ecological fallacy inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based
solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals
belong.[31]
Etymological fallacy which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word
or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[32]
Fallacy of accent a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a
sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written
passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.
Fallacy of composition assuming that something true of part of a whole must also
be true of the whole.[33]
Fallacy of division assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all
or some of its parts.[34]
Furtive fallacy outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of
decision makers.
Gambler's fallacy the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect
the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a
row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails"
is incorrect.[38]
Hedging using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of
them later.
Historian's fallacy occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past
viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those
subsequently analyzing the decision.[39] (Not to be confused with presentism, which
is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral
standards, are projected into the past.)
If-by-whiskey an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that
are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) an argument that may in
itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[43]
Ludic fallacy the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences
can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown
unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[44]
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) argument in which evidence presented in
response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is
demanded.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) when solutions to problems are rejected
because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"
the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who
denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad
ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the
assertion.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty
cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) X happened,
then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in
this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[48]
Prosecutor's fallacy a low probability of false matches does not mean a low
probability of some false match being found.
Proving too much - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used
more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
Red herring a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic
at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak
to.[49]
Referential fallacy[50] assuming all words refer to existing things and that the
meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words
possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from
how we use them.
Regression fallacy ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to
account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Retrospective determinism the argument that because some event has occurred,
its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Shotgun argumentation the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for
their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See
"Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
Wrong direction cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect
and vice versa.[51]
Faulty generalizations[edit]
A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be,
misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any
logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real
arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[58][59][60]
Red herring argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and
draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Abusive fallacy a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of
the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. [62]
Vacuous truth
Association fallacy (guilt by association) arguing that because two things share a
property they are the same.[84]
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) the
argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded
because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. [92]
Two wrongs make a right occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is
committed, another wrong will cancel it out.[93]
Broken window fallacy an argument that disregards lost opportunity costs (typically
non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying
property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an
argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but
disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent
on new shoes.[94]
Definist fallacy involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in
terms of the other.[95]
Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) asserting that a relatively
small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some
significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not
happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to
probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would [probably] occur, leading to
q, leading to w, leading to e.)[96] This is also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.
COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING
1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or
association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows
another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she
was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level
has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed
that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases)
was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex
education than for high schools that did not.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is
true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most
instances will be true in all instances.
example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to
ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.
example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that
80% of ex-felons recidivate.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or
on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used
as the basis for a broader generalization.
example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for
his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told
me to get lost.
example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor
has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the
neighborhood!
4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two
things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are
alike in other unknown respects.
example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians
in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without
breaking a few eggs.
example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to
curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce
promiscuity.
example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you
both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?
example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights
policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and
segregation continue to exist in the United States.
11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its
meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion
of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is
rational.
example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can
reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every
year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA,
micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not
have the same meaning in each case)
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument,
the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In
question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.
example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
example: Have you stopped beating your wife?
13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or
qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove
the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement
of the conclusion in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself
tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on
this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad
verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly
admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports
the conclusion being offered.
example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good
enough for me.
example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is
known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based
on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do
things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge timehonored customs or traditions.
back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass
slipper didnt change back too?"